Summary:
An analysis of two of Socretes' arguments concerning death, as expressed in Plato's "Apology." Both arguments, concluding that one should not fear death, contain sound premises, but neither argument as a whole is sound.
Dusty Hill
The Mind and its Place in Nature
First Essay
October 11, 2005
Are Socrates Arguments Sound"
Socrates believes one cannot fear what one does not know. He believes since no one has an absolute knowledge of what follows death in the natural world, man should not fear death. He has several arguments to back this up. In this paper I will look at two of his arguments and conclude that his arguments are unsound due to the fact that opinions are not truths.
First of all, to prove Socrates' arguments are not sound, one must know what a sound argument is. In a sound argument all of the premises must be true. For example:
People under 18 are not eligible to vote;
Some students in college are under 18;
Therefore, some college students are not eligible to vote.
This argument is not only sound but also it is valid. It is sound because both premises are true. One must be 18 to be eligible to vote. Some students in college are not 18 yet, so the conclusion that some college students are not able to vote is valid.
Now that it's clear what a sound argument is, I want to take a look at one of Socrates arguments that man should not fear death. Here is the first argument I will look at.
No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man.
It is the most blameworthy ignorance to think one knows what one does not know.
If one fears death, then one claims to know that death is not the greatest of all blessings for man.
Therefore, it is the most blameworthy ignorance to fear death. (Pace)
Premise one is sound because it is true. No one can actually know whether death will be the greatest blessings for a man because it is impossible to communicate with the dead to see if it is good or bad.
Premise two does not follow what a sound argument is. When Socrates declares that to think one knows what one does not as the most blameworthy ignorance is an opinion. No one can know what the most blameworthy ignorance is. It is not an absolute truth that it's the most blameworthy ignorance; therefore, it is not a sound argument.
I have proven by the second premise that Socrates first argument is not sound. If the word "most" is taken out of that premise, then I believe it would become a sound premise. Socrates would then be stating that it is merely ignorant to think one knows what one does not know.
Another argument that Socrates had about not fearing death was:
No one knows whether death is good or evil.
To do wrong and to disobey proper authorities is knowably evil.
If something is knowably evil, one ought to avoid it unless one knows the consequence to be a worse evil.
Therefore, one ought to avoid evil even if the consequence is death. (Pace)
Premise one is a sound because it is an absolute truth that no one can know if death is good or evil because once again it is impossible to know something that one cannot know.
Premise two is not a sound argument because it is an opinion of Socrates that to do wrong and to disobey proper authorities is evil. Public authorities are set up and they are given rules to follow. Everyone does not agree upon the rules or laws in which people must obey so it cannot be an absolute truth. What one thinks is evil, another person may not.
It is hard to argue premise three as a sound argument because again Socrates uses his opinion as a truth when it is really an opinion.
Some things are not always black and white. For example, if it is illegal to break into a store and if one did then one would be doing evil knowingly. What if the store was on fire and if the person broke in they could save the store. According to Socrates' premise that to do wrong and to disobey proper authorities is evil then that would be an evil act. Even though the storeowner would be very grateful to that person. Would the consequence of this action be a greater evil than the act of breaking into a store itself? Again, that is an opinion, because the storeowner in fact could press charges since the person did disobey authorities.
After looking at two arguments Socrates made for one shall not fear death I have concluded that neither of his arguments are sound. In each argument there are in fact sound premises but in order for an argument to be completely sound all the premises must in fact be total truths. Socrates believes he is wiser than others and that his opinions are true, but there is no doubt that no one can really prove what Socrates is trying to achieve in his arguments, which is to prove that one shall not fear death.
Work Cited
Pace, M. (September, 2005). Online posting. Platos Apology. www.chapman.edu
This is the complete article, containing 833 words
(approx. 3 pages at 300 words per page).
